Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

SOOOO MAD!

chrislancaster said:
what is this suppose to mean?


I live here and he's worked there for over 20 years .. ar you saying im a liar ?


maui has wind farms but their population is a tenth on honolulu .. there are no clean energy products to speak of here maybe a few solar panels on roofs but thats it.


Hawaiian Electric and the majority of utility companies own more than you would believe


also i would like to add i did not say the ONLY burn oil .. i simply stated they do burn oil for electricity






god, this board needs an enema
Click to expand...

At no point did I mean anything disparaging or doubt the truth of your statements. I apologize for any insult you may have felt.
I am well aware of many of the holdings and sources that the utilities own. There will have to be a shift in these as fossil fuel costs, economic and physical, rise. Hawaii is in a very good position to do so.Perhaps I should have modified my statement to, Hawaiian Electric's previous business model. Going forward we need to stay open to many ideas and suggestions. The suggestion that this electronic forum undergo a medical procedure is an interesting one.​
 
One of the problems with free markets as we have evolved them is that there has never been a pricing mechanism for public costs. We get pollution because companies are not responsible for the "downstream" costs of production. This is really easy to understand when you look at a river: if your factory is upstream from my farm and you dump crap in the river that kills my cows, I can sue you for the value of my cows. But if your crap also kills all the fish in the river, who is going to sue you for the value of the fish? And if the kids in the town downstream can't go swimming in the river, the town might build a swimming pool, but will you pay for that? Not likely. The town's taxpayers will.

If all you have to worry about is the chance that I'll sue you for the value of my cows, you don't have a very big incentive to build a plant to treat your factory's crap. Why would you spend $10 mil on a treatment plant if you can pay me $600K for my cows? On the other hand, if you are held responsible for restoring the river to its natural condition: restocking the fish, making it swimmable again, etc, the cost is much higher, and you are much more likely to avoid the pollution in the first place.

These public costs are very real. Down there in the Gulf, somebody is going to pay for cleanup, pay unemployment to out-of-work fishermen, compensate owners of tourist businesses. It will be either US taxpayers or BP's stockholders. It should be BP's stockholders, even if the tab is $100 Billion. Even if it causes the price of gasoline to go up.

Conservative economists are fond of talking about "moral hazard" -- the idea that a party insulated from risk may behave differently than it would behave if it were fully exposed to the risk. This might just be the most egregious example of "moral hazard" in our time. If free markets are to be anything more than a modern version of serfdom, we have to find a way to account for the costs of production that currently get pushed off onto the public.
 
I'm in Pensacola and tar balls are reportedly washing up on our sugar white sandy beaches today. The last few years our area has been bit hard by hurricanes and the economy. This is obviously not good news. However, most here are optimistic people and we pull together in times of crisis. All you can do is work hard and move in a positive direction and hope the eventual outcome is a good one. We have produced tourism spots for local tourism agencies, including one just today. The message may change a bit and we may be down and out for a while but it's still a beautiful place to live and work. Here's to hoping for the best.
 
Trevor Emmerson said:
the wind is always blowing somewhere. and the sun is always shining somewhere too. the secret to deploying renewable energy is that you don't put all your eggs in one basket. you spread the load, make up an energy mix. saying that sun and wind are unreliable so the only option is nuclear is a bit simplistic. there is wave energy and geothermal energy and they are both much more constant, and far from secrets. and scientists are working on them and have been for a long time. there are no magical solutions but there are many very real solutions that suffer from a general lack of awareness and as a result cash. once the ball gets rolling though, and it is rolling, these things will make a lot more sense to people.

i have been spending fair bit of time in the last few years with people a lot smarter that i am who are focussed on the battle to convince government at my local state level that it is a myth that renewables can't provide 100% of our energy needs. they can. and eventually they will have to. and it has been trained nuclear physicists and petro chemists and engineers and a range of very knowlegable people who have convinced me it not a pipe dream. when i started out, i too thought nuclear to be the lesser of 2 evils and that we would be better off just bulk building these nuclear plants everywhere until we could figure out something better- but the better is already here. and from a person who used to design and build nuclear power stations for a living i've been told they are just bad news. and i'm inclined to believe him. and when at 50 this bloke has gone back and done a 2nd phd in geothermal research and he tells me it, and the other renewables have to be the way forward. i'm inclined to agree with that too.

anyway, we live in interesting times.

by the way your dads friends 911 sounds like a cool project. i was building a car myself up until it just got too expensive to complete, would of loved to do a porsche- but they are a little little to fit in enough batteries to get good distance. things have changed alot in 10 years, but i would disagree with the claim that it would of been inefficient. mechanically i think dc/ac electric motors beat all comers in terms of efficiency, and completely pants the ICE.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying to go 100% nuclear, just open up some more plants. We need the power and plant construction provides much needed jobs. In my last post, I advocated using all renewable energy sources but as of now, using existing technology, not concepts, nuclear is the most cost effective, most efficient and has the least environmental impact.
 
It's a crime agains nature (and everything you like involved with it), humanity,...

Simply it's about you, yourself and how you observe the world.

Unfortunately in this case nobody's guilty, no BP, not governments (US or even UK according the oil industrial standards or laws...).

It's more about hypocrisy and corruption that can be publicly faced probably later...

But it's too late for some of the animals, birds and underwater life anyway...

More we go to the future more the world have got helpless...

Finally it's a time for a new world revolution...

But please no any or current Russian government involved in it (not even with its secret service) , or similar....

Be careful and we go....
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
omg.. when the hurricanes hit...

were talking OIL flying in the air at crazy speeds.. lighting strikes.. OIL bursts into fire..
Hurricanes of fire.. that just grow and grow from the heat..
spitting fire water all over..

doom!
Click to expand...

wow, thats so f'd because it could really happen ...


10-20 million gallons of oil being spewed out of a hurricane could cause some major damage

hell on earth and we will have our hands full ....



thats when the sharks will come and it will be all out war
 
as of now, using existing technology, not concepts, nuclear is the most cost effective, most efficient and has the least environmental impact.
Click to expand...

Andrew, no worries. I am sure many people would agree with you. And many governments aswell. those few more nuclear plants will no doubt get built.
I am sympathetic to the outlook, i just think when you really dig down into the details- of which there are many- nuclear can be proven not to be the most cost effective, efficient or environmentally sound as other current technologies. that is an issue that is widely debated though and will continue to be. with nuclear there are some big pro's and some big cons. everyone seems to weigh those pro's and cons differently. new plants will be built and the debate will be around for awhile. but in the long run its just creating problems today and saying we'll fix them tomorrow. the issue of waste and security and the fact that premium grade uranium is in itself a finite recourse much like oil and gas... why even bother? its not like we can build these things overnight, there are so many layers of complexity just on the side of logistics in building one of those things- more so than any type of power supply- that if it was agreed today that nuclear was a worthwhile solution going forward and the decision made to roll more out, by the time you are able to draw power from them the world will be a different place. environmentally, economically, and technologically. i am told that if you decided to build a new nuclear plant today you need to allow 10 years or more before your vision would become a reality. it just makes more sense on so many levels to invest today in the technologies that will get us where we really need to be going rather than something that it will probably make sense to replace almost as soon as they are built.

anyway. to get this thread back on topic a bit i'd just like to add: BP, i hope the resulting legal battles you will face wipe you from the face of the earth and see the people ultimately responsible for this locked up
 
In most off-shore oil fields in other countries' territorial waters, the oil companies must drill simultaneous relief wells to manage the pressure on the primary well-head. If the blow-out preventer fails on the primary well-head, the relief well can draw from the field and lower the pressure on the primary so it can be capped. Every other government requires this from the oil companies before they are granted drilling permits. But, drilling two wells is expensive, so in the US, the oil companies dismantled the regulatory apparatus so they would not have to put two wells in American territorial waters... you're seeing on live TV what the risks are and you are watching the worst-case scenario unfolding right now.

The ONLY solution to the problem is the relief well-head which is about a month into its two to three month job of drilling. All the "Top Hat" and "Junk Shot" schemes you're watching on TV right now are just improvisational engineering side-shows that have a less-than 1% chance of stopping the gusher. The Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean, the Eastern Atlantic seaboard, the Yucatan, The Northern and Central South American coastal areas will be heavily damaged.

There are approximately 80,000 barrels of crude gushing out of the pipe per day. All the other estimates you've heard are "Best Case" estimates. Unless we catch a bit of luck, this will continue for the next two months at least.
 
I think nuclear proponents that talk about coal mining's problems are forgetting that uranium ore also has to be mined, and that the areas around uranium mines are far from having zero environmental issues. I'm not saying that we absolutely shouldn't look at nuclear, but it won't be a cure all. And in the time for enough nuclear power stations to come on line to take over from coal and oil, we really should be pursuing green power with the same fervour anyway.
 
Wasn't Goldman Sachs recently involved in some scam not too long ago? Now this with BP? It 10 years we'll really find out what happened.
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
omg.. when the hurricanes hit...

were talking OIL flying in the air at crazy speeds.. lighting strikes.. OIL bursts into fire..
Hurricanes of fire.. that just grow and grow from the heat..
spitting fire water all over..

doom!
Click to expand...

worst_case_scenario.png
 
chrislancaster said:
wow, thats so f'd because it could really happen ...


10-20 million gallons of oil being spewed out of a hurricane could cause some major damage

hell on earth and we will have our hands full ....



thats when the sharks will come and it will be all out war
Click to expand...



regardless if the fire hurricane happens.. a hurricane full of oil WILL happen.. and it will spit that oil all over crops and citys...
the oil spill really isnt the worst case scenario.. what WILL happen in the next few months will be a worst case scenario
 
Zakaree Sandberg said:
regardless if the fire hurricane happens.. a hurricane full of oil WILL happen.. and it will spit that oil all over crops and citys...
the oil spill really isnt the worst case scenario.. what WILL happen in the next few months will be a worst case scenario
Click to expand...

And all of your expertise in the area of hurricanes, weather systems, oil spills, and how all of these things could interact comes from....?????
 
M Most said:
And all of your expertise in the area of hurricanes, weather systems, oil spills, and how all of these things could interact comes from....?????
Click to expand...

Hahahaha yeah. The people on this board are definitely good at creating good laughs.

I could theorize that a hurricane would involve bringing the oil and then also catching on fire..... but I know nothing about the real science behind hurricanes and if that's even possible. I'm guessing that all these people making wild comments are in the same boat as me.
 
"What about Chernobyl? Well, the Russians were incompetent, the disaster was easily avoidable. When else has nuclear gone wrong? "

This is a joke? I remember your former joking when we talked about international law.

THREE MILE ISLAND -- YOU KNOW -- the incident that stopped the US nuclear industry in its tracks for 30 years?

I guess facts don't matter in the post modern world. Go sprinkle some nuclear waste on your Corn Flakes, buddy.

-- I wish people would add tide generation to their solar and wind lists. Tide is quite promising. We would have many better alternatives if the Reagan and the corporatists didn't attack the alternative energy industry for these past decades. Corruption and obstruction of competition are at the very heart of our current sad state.

We have been held in a stranglehold by the centralized energy oligopolies. Distributed production, where a central plant isn't producing the power, regular people and businesses are, is the best solution. We can take the power back by producing power at the places it is needed. Those who want to shove a top down consumer model down our throats, despite the risks and inefficiencies (nuclear for example) ignore these protests and basic logic. It's in their interest to get us hooked on their grid and keep us paying them.

We should use this latest oil disaster to push for more incentives to local generation, and away from the centralized models.

Nuclear is the worst possible option. Don't kid yourself. Your parroting of pro industry arguments are ridiculous. You couldn't even remember Three Mile Island even occurred. Please.

The Russians were incompetent?

British Petroleum, anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top